Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 26th May 2010, 06:18 PM   #1
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ariel
Who is gonna win in a fight between the whale and the elephant?
Or Captain Alatriste and D'Artagnan?
Or Maximus-the- Gladiator and Robin Hood, if both were played by Russel Crowe?
I thought we have decided to avoid fruitless disussions of the " shamshir vs. rapier" type...
Naah.... :-)
Im with you Ariel! I never cared much for fantasy swords either, nor reality TV drivel. I guess its part of the spectrum though, to each his own and all that. Now, I need to find my plastic knights play set.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th May 2010, 09:54 PM   #2
pallas
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 53
Default

some of that rajput armor looked more like mughal armor. i thought rajputs went into battle much more lightly armored than that...............you learn something everyday i guess.

and i thought the chakram/quoit was a sikh weapon??? i remember some british writer saying that the sikhs "kept their quoits (chakram) under their turbans so as to conceal them"


there are so many weapons they could have used. i guess they picked the 4 they thought would be most effective...


i agree with the outcome, the centurion was a better warrior in a legion than on his own.
pallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th May 2010, 11:49 PM   #3
lionzden
Member
 
lionzden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pallas
some of that rajput armor looked more like mughal armor. i thought rajputs went into battle much more lightly armored than that...............you learn something everyday i guess.

and i thought the chakram/quoit was a sikh weapon??? i remember some british writer saying that the sikhs "kept their quoits (chakram) under their turbans so as to conceal them"


there are so many weapons they could have used. i guess they picked the 4 they thought would be most effective...


i agree with the outcome, the centurion was a better warrior in a legion than on his own.
in 16thC rajputs, mughals and sikhs often interspersed to learn from one another.

rajputs and mughals although at one time fought against each other, they ended up helping shore up each other's power and rallied together in the fight against creation of sikh army.

sikhs were the best swordsmen one-on-one with indo persian arms. but they were always ridiculously outnumbered in their battles. hence they learned to use anything and everything to throw at their opponents.

the british were much more adept at strategy, war planning and politics and proved it by establishing such a vast raj.

history shows the real test of time, we can debate centurian vs. robin hood til our hair turns grey LoL
lionzden is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.